NCAA set to allow direct payments to athletes
- Thread starter simply1
- Start date
That's a big hole for no Natty.See where Alabama reported a loss of $23 million in 23-24 and $12 million in the athletic department for last year.
Yes, because opportunity /= pay.. if women sports lose money, it'd make sense they'd get a lower share of revenue.
If they lose money, they shouldn't exist at all, right? If money is the deciding factor, then equality isn't making a dent. The revenues will speak for themselves and schools will follow accordingly. That would be the fiscally-savvy decision for them to make.
When these rules were initially made, they were made completely ignoring compensation and revenues as a factor. That's no longer the case. They are now a massive driving factor behind the sports at a high level. That can't keep being legally ignored forever, as we are currently finding out. Being able to play is an opportunity, sure... Being in a Pay to Play is also an opportunity that isn't equally-afforded.
Maybe.
According to the NCCA website, scholarships need to be the same, but otherwise they just need to receive equitable treatment and benefits. But I also don’t have the regulation in front of me. I don’t know if the regulation uses the term “scholarship” or if it uses a term like “financial remuneration for participation” (which at the time just meant scholarships because athletes couldn’t be paid and they wanted to avoid loopholes).
Even if they just mean scholarships, what does “equitable” mean? Does it mean how much money you bring in? Team/individual GPA (since they are student athletes)? How successful the team is?
My speculation on what the problem is going to be is how this is how turning into the universities directly facilitating payments to athletes. If that is to be done EQUALLY, then in my head, it's a comparable -- the expectation would be that the top athletes in any given sport are granted equal shares of funds. The #1 athletes on your football, basketball, volleyball, softball, etc. teams all should be getting the same compensation as it is routed from the school itself, right? That would be equal between men and women. 2 athletes of a sport are doing the same work/activity -- playing the sport.
Starting to cut it up by revenues generated becomes inherently unequal and then poses the question of why be required to upkeep schools that cannot be made equal to others, or in particular, upkeep sports that lose money?
except it's revenue sharing not just some number pulled out of some AD's ass. Fairly simple, just give each sport the same percentage of revenue they generate.
So it's not equal, then, it's proportional to generation. That doesn't seem to jive with Title 9 (admittedly, that connection hasn't been defined yet at all and may never exist -- I'm just speculating on what would happen if it does get tied together).
Every sport besides FB and MBB is a net loss, that's where the concept of revenue sharing is odd to me compared to profit sharing you see at plenty of companies.
the opportunity is supposed to be equal, not the end result. If everyone shares in 25% of the revenue that their sport generates, their opportunity to earn money is equal. The rest is determined by their talent and the customers' desires.
the problem with doing it based on profit is that allows the schools to spend on other things rather than pay the players. Even football programs could find lots of things to pour money into (and have over the years to avoid looking like they are making too much money)
What this would almost certainly lead to is lower coaching salaries for the non revenue producing sports. The only reason they were that high to begin with was due to the surplus revenue the athletic departments had.
By splitting via revenues, you are already splitting the end result, not the front opportunity. Revenues comes after signing up. Determining anything via consumer demand is strictly results-based. The revenues are the results.
There is definitely a problem with actual marketability and what consumers pay for, and this aspect of the equation is completely unaddressed by the current state of T9. It was never designed to handle this sort of situation. I foresee this being a problem as schools now take over how to distribute these kinds of funds. We aren't just talking about a free ride to classes and room/board anymore, which at the time, was "equal" in terms of the schools' responsibilities.
Agree, title 9 was not intended to address this.
If the courts decide to take that 20 million and have the women get 10 million, the schools will just move football and men's basketball out of the NCAA and out of direct control of the universities.
I'm pretty sure some sports don't even cover their scholarship expenses.
I despise pay for play. But since its here we have to adjust to it.
My 2 cents FB,MBB, WBB,Wrestling get some money, the rest get scholarships and whatever money that sports supporters give to it and whatever the athlete can earn thru true NIL.
Just because your a athlete doesn't mean your worth anymore than a scholarship especially in non revenue, low visibility sports.
Agree to give them an equivalent share of the net revenue that they generate (which would be nothing in almost all cases) and you've satisfied any equality requirement.
I could see them doing something like this, but the schools may also like taking the football players and men’s basketball players down a peg. Plus, if the schools are required to give a certain amount to student athletes, they may not care which athletes get it.
Also, would the numbers work? They’d be selling the teams to an investor and then would get payments for IP, but they also wouldn’t get nearly as much in conference payouts. Unless they were planning to basically shut down the athletic department or think the value of college football will tank in a few years, I’m not sure it would make financial sense
Last edited:
I don't think it's that simple. Revenues are results-based, not opportunity-based.
The past: men and women athletes get a free ride, some swag, room and board from the schools. Exactly the same regardless of gender and regardless of sport.
Today example: women's diving continues to get those. Football players get those plus $15,000,000 to share, provided entirely by the university itself. In practice, this is not equal by gender nor by sport played, at least not from the viewpoint of who is writing the checks -- now the universities.
The university paying out some athletes and not others is an equality problem, and while it's not the entire issue scope, it will heavily correlate with gender.
I think it's that, or you're going to see a serious nerfing to, or the fall of, T9 altogether.
If the sports separate out entirely, a very weird "college sports" landscape and indirect funding system is going to emerge. Not sure how sustainable that will be.
Hard disagree, but if they somehow get what they want, some of their sports will simply disappear.
